CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06482.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06482.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06482.h1

grantedMay 25, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case involved an Iraqi national who served as an interpreter for U.S. armed forces, facing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's possession of an Iraqi passport and immediate family relatives residing in Iraq as disqualifying conditions.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He surrendered his Iraqi passport to the appropriate authorities and demonstrated substantial ties to the United States, which were found to outweigh his connections to Iraq. Furthermore, the applicant had an excellent reputation for trustworthiness and had served at considerable personal risk.

Based on these mitigating factors, the judge determined that the security concerns were resolved. The applicant was ultimately granted security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant surrendered his Iraqi passport to the appropriate authorities.
Applicant demonstrated substantial ties to the United States that outweighed his ties to Iraq.
Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness and has served at considerable personal risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 9(a)raisedForeign Preference

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedForeign InfluenceApplicant demonstrated that his ties to the United States are more substantial than his ties to Iraq.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedForeign PreferenceApplicant surrendered his Iraqi passport and has served the U.S. military.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign influence and foreign preference do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 18, 2017as scheduled
Decision dateMay 25, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Mitigation of Foreign Preference Under Guideline C
Importance of Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by his substantial ties to the United States, including his service as an interpreter for the U.S. armed forces and the surrender of his Iraqi passport. The decision concluded that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness outweighed the foreign influence issues, resulting in a favorable outcome for the applicant.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Military or Government Service · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has an Iraqi passport and immediate family relatives in Iraq.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iraq	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Foreign Assets Divested Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b–1.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline C (Foreign Preference) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign preference concerns were mitigated by his actions, including surrendering his Iraqi passport and demonstrating stronger ties to the United States. The applicant's service as an interpreter for the U.S. armed forces and his reputation for trustworthiness contributed to the decision to grant him security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has an Iraqi passport	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference	—
1.b	Applicant has immediate family relatives in Iraq	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference	—
1.c–1.f	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline C). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06482 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/25/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On December 22, 2014, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On April 15, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline C (foreign preference). Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. On December 23, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On January 18, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed the parties indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

The SOR allegations stem from Applicant having an Iraqi passport and immediate family relatives in Iraq. Applicant has surrendered his Iraqi passport to the appropriate authorities and demonstrated that his ties to the United States are more substantial than his ties to Iraq. He has served as an interpreter with the U.S. armed forces at considerable personal risk since 2006 and been the victim of three separate IEDs. Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guidelines B and C. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the foreign influence and foreign preference security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the respective and appropriate mitigating conditions.

The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign influence and foreign preference do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006, and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.